Murray CharltonMurray Charlton

Nearshore WatersNearshore Waters

Good AfternoonSince the SOLEC Nearshore report of 1996 many problems have stayed the same or become worse. During the same time some new issues have appeared and our understanding of some has increased dramatically.CLICK

Nearshore WatersNearshore Waters

•• Source of drinking waterSource of drinking water•• Utilities (power, industry )Utilities (power, industry )•• Front line pollution Front line pollution

receiv erreceiv er•• RecreationRecreation•• HabitatHabitat•• Property v aluesProperty v alues•• AestheticsAesthetics•• InterInter--jurisdictional jurisdictional

pollution transf erpollution transf er

Why are we so interested in the

Nearshore?

Lake Mich igan (Bradford Beac h;Lake Mich igan (Bradford Beac h;

im age by M ilwauk ee M etropol i tan Sewerage Dis tric tim age by M ilwauk ee M etropol i tan Sewerage Dis tric t

Photo c red i t: Minnes ota Sea GrantPhoto c red i t: Minnes ota Sea Grant

The nearshore is where we experience the water first hand. We drink it and at the same time discharge urban runoff and treated sewage into it. Recreation and property values are affected by the condition of the nearshore. Fish habitat is an important feature. Due to alongshore currents there is the possibility of inter-jurisdictional transfers of pollution. And lets not forget our industries depend on good quality for process and cooling water flows.

CLICK

2

Nearshore WatersNearshore Waters

•• NutrientsNutrients•• NonNon--native speciesnative species•• Viral Viral Hemorrhagic Septicemia (V HS)Hemorrhagic Septicemia (V HS)•• CladophoraCladophora•• Harmful Algal BloomsHarmful Algal Blooms•• Human healthHuman health•• BotulismBotulism•• Physical processes and Nearshore habitatPhysical processes and Nearshore habitat

The Nearshore Waters report has 8 chapters. I’ll try to give the flavour of some of the highlights in this presentation.CLICK

3

NutrientsNutrients

•• Av erage concentrations of phosphorus and algae Av erage concentrations of phosphorus and algae tend to be higher in the nearshoretend to be higher in the nearshore

•• Nitrate is much higher in Erie and Ontario Nitrate is much higher in Erie and Ontario nearshore, perhaps consistent with agricultural and nearshore, perhaps consistent with agricultural and sewage sourcessewage sources

•• Offshore Total Phosphorus is greater than 10 Offshore Total Phosphorus is greater than 10 uugg/L /L in 7% of samples, but only in Lake Eriein 7% of samples, but only in Lake Erie

•• Nearshore Total Phosphorus is greater than 10 Nearshore Total Phosphorus is greater than 10 ugug/L /L in 18% of nearshore samples in all the Great Lakesin 18% of nearshore samples in all the Great Lakes

•• Variability tends to be greater in the nearshoreVariability tends to be greater in the nearshore

Phosphorus is usually the nutrient we are most concerned about where we have excessive algae problems.Average concentrations of phosphorus and algae tend to be higher in the nearshoreNitrate is much higher in Erie and Ontario nearshore, perhaps consistent with agricultural and sewage sourcesA phosphorus concentration of 10 ug/L would be consistent with good water quality. Offshore Total phosphorus is greater than 10 ug/L in 7% of samples, but only in Lake Erie – So offshore waters are generally in good condition.In contrast, Total phosphorus is greater than 10 ug/L in 18% of nearshore samples in all the Great LakesVariability tends to be greater in the nearshore consistent with mixing in of sources thereCLICK

4

PhosphorusPhosphorus

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

Superi or Huron Michig an Erie Ontari o

Lake

Ph

osph

orus

con

cen

trat

ion

μg

/l

Nearshore

Of fshore

This graph shows total phosphorus nearshore and offshore in the Great Lakes – there is some doubt about the Lake Ontario data. Phosphorus comes into the lakes in the nearshore and indeed is higher in nearshore zones and is high enough to help cause problems such as excessive Cladophora and blue green algae blooms in some places.CLICK

5

Land UseLand Use

One pressure on water quality is increasing change in land use around the Great LakesThe darker colours show the most development.2.5% of U.S. land in drainage basin changed 1992 to 2001 –Half of this was non-developed to developed.21% of development was within 10 km of the shoreline.CLICK

6

Influence of Land on PhosphorusInfluence of Land on Phosphorus

Here we have Total Phosphorus and the degree of agricultural development.The degree of agricultural development is highest in the lower lakes and this correlates with potential to increase phosphorusin the nearshore and offshore.CLICK

7

Hamilton Harbour 2 weeks ago (Hamilton Spectator)Hamilton Harbour 2 weeks ago (Hamilton Spectator)

Harmful Algae Blooms (HABS)Harmful Algae Blooms (HABS)

Harmful Algae Blooms can sometimes be spectacular such as this concentrated scum of toxic blue-green algae in Hamilton Harbour 2 weeks ago.CLICK

8

9

Harmful Algal Blooms (Harmful Algal Blooms (HABsHABs))

•• Many Many planktonicplanktonic, benthic, benthic & littoral species& littoral species•• Many locations: Many locations: nearshore & offshore watersnearshore & offshore waters•• Socioeconomic ImpactsSocioeconomic Impacts

–– HealthHealth –– toxins, carcinogens, irritantstoxins, carcinogens, irritants–– Drinking waterDrinking water –– toxins, tastetoxins, taste--odour, aestheticsodour, aesthetics–– Fouling, cloggingFouling, clogging –– intakes, fish nets, shorelines intakes, fish nets, shorelines –– RecreationRecreation –– beaches, tourist industry beaches, tourist industry –– Tainting Tainting ––f ish/shellfish/processed f ood/irrigation waterf ish/shellfish/processed f ood/irrigation water–– Mortalities Mortalities –– livestock/wildlif e/pet/bird/f ishlivestock/wildlif e/pet/bird/f ish

•• Ecological ImpactsEcological Impacts–– Food webs Food webs –– toxins, inhibitors; diversity, species, food toxins, inhibitors; diversity, species, food

quality, anoxia, habitat change, invasive species, etc.quality, anoxia, habitat change, invasive species, etc.

Harmful Algal Blooms (HABs)•Many planktonic, benthic & littoral species•Many locations: nearshore & offshore waters with many impacts…•Socioeconomic Impacts

Health – toxins, carcinogens, irritantsDrinking water – toxins, taste-odour, aestheticsFouling, clogging – intakes, fish nets, shorelines Recreation – beaches, tourist industry Tainting – fish/shellfish/processed food/irrigation waterMortalities – livestock/wildlife/pet/bird/fish

•Ecological ImpactsFood webs – toxins, inhibitors; diversity, species, food quality, anoxia, habitat change, invasive species, etc. CLICK

10

Risk: Increases Risk: Increases with Phosphoruswith Phosphorus

% R

isk

of c

yano

bact

eria

dom

inan

ce

[TP](ug/L)

Downing, Watson & McCauley (2001)Downing, Watson & McCauley (2001)

Cyanobacteria

0

2

4

0 1 2 3

-

Log TP (ug/L)

Log

bio

mas

s (u

g.L-

1 )

-

The average % risk of cyanobacterial or Blue-green algae dominance on the Y axis increases with TP levels on the X axis of the left hand graph. This is extreme above 50-60ug/L. note however the high variance around the “mesotrophic range” of 10 to 30 ugP/L – i.e. outbreaks, although erratic, can be severe sometimes with relatively low phosphorus.. Some rivers in Lake Erie have phosphorus higher than 60 ug/L.CLICK

CladophoraCladophora

•• Nuisance accumulations on shoreline Nuisance accumulations on shoreline affect recreation and property valuesaffect recreation and property values

•• CladophoraCladophora in water affects utilities in water affects utilities operations and water quality operations and water quality managementmanagement

•• May be a factor in avian botulismMay be a factor in avian botulism•• May be a factor in water May be a factor in water E.coliE.coli

Cladophora grows as hair like filaments attached to

rocky lake bottoms. Nuisance accumulations on

shorelines, as in this slide, affect recreation and

property values.

Cladophora in water affects utilities operations and

water quality management

May be a factor in avian botulism

May be a factor in water E.coliCLICK

11

CladophoraCladophora•• Problem was controlled by 1970s nutrient load Problem was controlled by 1970s nutrient load

limitslimits•• Zebra and Zebra and QuaggaQuagga mussels have increased mussels have increased

light availability so now light availability so now CladophoraCladophora grows to grows to greater depthsgreater depths

•• Lack of prior re search prohibits a solid Lack of prior re search prohibits a solid conclusion that problem is worseconclusion that problem is worse

•• Clearly though, there is a problem todayClearly though, there is a problem today

Photo credit: Rock Point Provincial Park; image by Scott HigginsPhoto credit: Rock Point Provincial Park; image by Scott Higgins

The Cladophora Problem was controlled by 1970s nutrient load limits.Zebra and Quagga mussels have increased light availability so now Cladophora grows to greater depthsLack of prior research prohibits a solid conclusion that problem is worseClearly though, there is a problem today

CLICK

12

CladophoraCladophora MitigationMitigation

•• The only way to mitigation is thought to be by The only way to mitigation is thought to be by further controlling soluble reactive phosphorus: further controlling soluble reactive phosphorus: treated sewage, urban runoff, agricultural runofftreated sewage, urban runoff, agricultural runoff

•• Fairly large Fairly large CladophoraCladophora populations exist in the populations exist in the absence of obvious nutrient sourcesabsence of obvious nutrient sources

•• A nearshore detailed approach such as urban A nearshore detailed approach such as urban runoff control studies as well as a whole runoff control studies as well as a whole lalake ke approach may be needed.approach may be needed.

13

The only way to mitigation is thought to be by further controlling soluble reactive phosphorus: treated sewage, urban runoff, agricultural runoffFairly large Cladophora populations exist in the absence of obvious nutrient sourcesA nearshore detailed approach such as urban runoff control studies as well as a whole lake approach may be needed.CLICK

•• Modelling is w ell advanced and still Modelling is w ell advanced and still progressingprogressing

•• Models w ill indicate reasonable Models w ill indicate reasonable expectations from further nutrient controlsexpectations from further nutrient controls

•• Cons istent monitor ing w ith tradit ional as Cons istent monitor ing w ith tradit ional as w ell as remote sens ing methods is w ell as remote sens ing methods is needed.needed.

•• BUT mussels seem to facilitate nuisance BUT mussels seem to facilitate nuisance grow ths far aw ay from nutrient sources !grow ths far aw ay from nutrient sources !

CladophoraCladophora MitigationMitigation

Photo cr edit: Bre nda Photo cr edit: Bre nda M ora skaM ora ska Laf ra ncoisLaf ra ncois

Modelling is well advanced and still progressingModels will indicate reasonable expectations from further nutrient controlsConsistent monitoring with traditional as well as remote sensing methods is needed.BUT mussels seem to facilitate nuisance growths far away from nutrient sources so we may be stuck with this problem!

14

Type E BotulismType E BotulismDistribut ion of Historical OutbreaksDist ribut ion of Historical Outbreaks

Type E botulism has been blamed as the cause for die-offs of fish and tens of thousands of birds around the Great Lakes, reaching as far back as the 1960s.

While mostly limited to the Northern and Eastern shores of Lake Michigan and Saginaw Bay several decades ago, in the past ten years, outbreaks shifted east and began occurring annually along other regions of Lake Huron in 1998, in Lake Erie in 1999, and in Lake Ontario after 2002.

Over the past few years, the location of outbreaks has shifted again to include areas in northern Lake Michigan, as Ken Hyde will elaborate on during the Lake Michigan presentation tomorrow.

CLICK

15

Avian MortalitiesAvian MortalitiesRelated to BotulismRelated to Botulism

Gra ph s ou rces : USGS Gra ph s ou rces : USGS –– N atio nal Wil dlife H ealt h Ce nte r main tain ed dat ab ases , 2 008 ;N atio nal Wil dlife H ealt h Ce nte r main tain ed dat ab ases , 2 008 ;Lair d Lair d Shu ttShu tt and Chip and Chip Wes elohWes eloh , u npu blish ed dat a f ro m 2 004, u npu blish ed dat a f ro m 2 004 --2 007 East ern La ke Ont ario Colo nial 2 007 East ern La ke Ont ario Colo nial W ate rbi rdW ate rbi rd S urv eys, 20 08S urv eys, 20 08

3,842

9 ,300

2 5,000

8,0 00

31 159971

5861,55 0

4,92 0

7,7 20

9 ,658 

2,10 7 

10,900  

17,95 9 

 ‐  

 5,000 

 10,000 

 15,000 

 20,000 

 25,000 

1963

1964

1969

1980

1 981

1983

1 999

2 000

2 001

2002

2 003

200 4

2005

200 6

2007

Y ear

Estimated A

vian M

ortalities

Ea s te rn La ke  Ontario C olonia l Waterbi rd S urvey  2004 ‐2007  data

Na tional Wildlife Health C ente r da ta

Avian deaths have been quite variable and data are incomplete but still some episodes have large numbers of mortalities.

There are several opportunities for additional research and mitigative actions that would help us begin to respond.

Such as,•The development of an inexpensive and reliable field testing kitwould enable more efficient monitoring

•Additional research investigating transfer mechanisms and environmental triggers would help focus potential responses

•Support of ongoing efforts in carcass clean-up during outbreaks may help to limit the extent of botulism outbreaks.

•Coordination of existing efforts and database improvement would also aid in focusing future research and response projects

NonNon--Indigenous Species (NIS)Indigenous Species (NIS)

0

20

40

60

80

1 00

1 20

1 40

1 60

1 80

2 00

18 40s 18 60s 18 80 s 19 00 s 1 920 s 1 940 s 1 960 s 1 98 0s 2 00 0s

Decade

Cum

ulat

ive

num

ber

of

NIS

Tota l = 185

39 “high” risk species yet to arrive in the Great Lakes

SeawaySeaway

Invasive non-indigenous species or alien species have become an increasing problem in the Great Lakes. The graph shows the cumulative number of plants and animals that have invaded. We now have 184 species in the lakes; the rate of invasion increased with the St. Lawrence Seaway but may be decreasing lately.Studies show that 39 species with a high risk of damaging invasion are yet to appear if introduction pathways are not closed.

Click

NonNon--Indigenous SpeciesIndigenous Species

•• Status is poorStatus is poor•• 18 new species since 1996 = 1.5 per year!18 new species since 1996 = 1.5 per year!•• Status is deteriorating; each new species may Status is deteriorating; each new species may

disrupt existing food webs in unpredictable disrupt existing food webs in unpredictable and/or undesirable waysand/or undesirable ways

Phot o cr edit : M ichiga n Sea G r ant Phot o cr edit : G LFCPhot o cr edit : M innesot a Sea G r antPhot o cr edit : Univer s it y of Windsor

The status of the Non-indigenous species problem is poor18 new species have invaded since 1996 = 1.5 per year!The situation is deteriorating as each new species may disrupt existing food webs in unpredictable and/or undesirable waysCLICK

18

NonNon--Indigenous Species: Indigenous Species: 3 3 ““BadBad”” OnesOnes

CercopagisCercopagis (fish hook (fish hook waterfleawaterflea))•• Competes against baby fish and Competes against baby fish and

planktivorousplanktivorous fishfish•• Fouls fishing gearFouls fishing gear

DiseaseDisease•• Viral Viral HemorragicHemorragic SepticemiaSepticemia (VHS) (VHS) •• Largemouth Bass Virus (LMBV)Largemouth Bass Virus (LMBV)•• Spring Spring ViremiaViremia of Carp (SVC)of Carp (SVC)

HemimysisHemimysis ((mysidmysid shrimp)shrimp)•• Competes against young fish, but Competes against young fish, but

may be a source of food for older may be a source of food for older fishfish

Phot o cr ed it : NO AA, G LE RL

Phot o cr ed it : U. S. Envir onm ent a l Pr ot ect i on A genc y

Some bad examples of recent invaders are:Cercopagis (fish hook waterflea)

•Competes against baby fish and planktivorousfish•Fouls fishing gear

Disease•Viral Hemorragic Septicemia (VHS) •Largemouth Bass Virus (LMBV)•Spring Viremia of Carp (SVC)

Hemimysis (mysid shrimp)•Competes against young fish, but may be a source of food for older fish

CLICK

19

•• New dev elopment is New dev elopment is concentrated in coastal concentrated in coastal areasareas

•• Shorelines are armored to Shorelines are armored to protect property and protect property and inf rastructureinf rastructure

•• In Ohio, more than 75% of In Ohio, more than 75% of the coastline was the coastline was armouredarmouredin 2000in 2000

•• TwoTwo--thirds reduction in mean thirds reduction in mean erosion rates between 1990 erosion rates between 1990 and 2004 due to increased and 2004 due to increased shore protection and lower shore protection and lower Great Lakes water levels Great Lakes water levels since 1999since 1999

Source: Ohio Div is ion of Geolog ic a l Surv eySource: Ohio Div is ion of Geolog ic a l Surv ey

Lake Eri e

NearshoreNearshore HabitatsHabitats

Physical Alteration of the Land/Water Interface

Physical alteration of the land-water interface is affecting nearshore habitats.New development is concentrated along shorelines that are then armoured to protect property and infrastructure.For example 75% of the Ohio shoreline is armoured.Armouring has been successful in causing a two thirds reduction in erosion rates. BUT there is a downside to this.CLICK

20

NearshoreNearshore Impacts of Physical Impacts of Physical Alterat ion of the Land/Water InterfaceAlterat ion of the Land/Water Interface

•• Sand is trapped or redirected offshoreSand is trapped or redirected offshore

•• Less beach nour ishment causes thinner Less beach nour ishment causes thinner beaches and erosion of claybeaches and erosion of clay

•• Erosion of clay deepens w ater, increases Erosion of clay deepens w ater, increases w ave energy and degrades w ater qualityw ave energy and degrades w ater quality

•• Degraded coastal w etlands and river Degraded coastal w etlands and river mouth habitats mouth habitats

Sand is trapped or redirected offshoreLess beach nourishment causes thinner beaches and erosion of clayErosion of clay deepens water, increases wave energy and degrades water qualityThis also causes degraded coastal wetlands and river mouth habitats .CLICK

21

Historical Changes to Lake Historical Changes to Lake Erie Beach Fish AssemblagesErie Beach Fish Assemblages

An integration of nearshorenearshore effects?

emera ld  shine r

spotta il s hineryellow perch

white  ba ssalewifetrout

other

emera ld  shine r

round  goby

spotta il  s hine r

othe r

1940s1940s 20052005

In a comparison of seining done off of Lake Erie beaches in the 1940s by Dr. Scott of the Royal Ontario Museum and recent seining done in 2005 and 2006:-Using similar effort, more species were collected in the 1940s (40 species vs. 29 species)-There was a greater diversity of species dominant in the 1940s-Only emerald shiner and spottail shiner, two pelagic species, had similar relative abundances between the two time periods.-Round goby was the second most dominant species in the recent sampling.

-CLICK

22

Factors Related to Simplification Factors Related to Simplification of Lake Erie Beach Fishesof Lake Erie Beach Fishes

• Degradation of spaw ning habitat• Eutrophication

– nuisance blooms of Cladophora• Channel darter – intolerant of poor

shoreline. Protection structures lead to loss of sand and reduction in beaches (Meadows et al. 2005)

– past century > 3500 structures built• Invasive species

– round goby: dominant nearshore species

A number of nearshore effects mentioned in this presentation come together to cause problems for nearshore fish.Eutrophication, Claodphora, Shoreline Protection, and, Invasive species all seem to contribute to loss of species richness in the nearshore fishery.

CLICK

23

83% of Great Lakes 83% of Great Lakes Beaches are open 95% of Beaches are open 95% of

the Swimming Seasonthe Swimming Season5% of Great Lakes 5% of Great Lakes

Beaches are posted 5Beaches are posted 5--9% 9% of the Swimming Seasonof the Swimming Season

12% of Great Lakes 12% of Great Lakes Beaches are posted more Beaches are posted more

than 10% of the than 10% of the Swimming SeasonSwimming Season

83%

5%12%

Photo c red i t: Ci ty of TorontoPhoto c red i t: Ci ty of Toronto

Human Health Great Lakes Beaches

Conditions at Great Lakes beaches are generally quite good. Posting criteria are quite stringent but still:83% of Great Lakes Beaches are open 95% of the Swimming Season5% of Great Lakes Beaches are posted 5-9% of the Swimming Season12% of Great Lakes Beaches are posted more than 10% of the Swimming SeasonWe now know bird faeces may be a factor in E.coli at beachesCLICK

24

Human HealthHuman HealthFish ConsumptionFish Consumption

Source: Ontario Minis try of the Env i ronm ent

∑PCBs in OMOE Individ ual 60 cm L ake Tro ut*Compared to the Ontario Sport Fish Consumption Guidelines

0

0.1

0.2

0 .3

0 .4

0 .5

Lake Ontario L ake Erie Lake Huron Lake Superior

PC

Bs

(pp

m)

200520062007

> 0.211 pp m Do not eat

0.105 - 0.211 ppm 4 meals /

month< 0.105 pp m

8 meals / mo nth

Sen sitive* population limits used in g rap h.*Women of chi ld-bearing age an d chi ldren u nder 15 years of age.

ΣPCBs in OMOE individual 60 cm lake trout compared to the Ontario Sport Fish Consumption Guidelines.Advisory limits for sensitive populations (women of child-bearing age and children under 15 years of age) are used in graph.Concentrations are generally declining but in many locations are above limits for the most sensitive people.CLICK

25

FinallyFinally……

Afternoon Breakout SessionAfternoon Breakout SessionAdaptive Management ImplicationsAdaptive Management Implicationsfor the Changing Aquatic Nearshorefor the Changing Aquatic Nearshore

““What really can be done?What really can be done?””

Come to Plenary sessions tomorrowCome to Plenary sessions tomorrow

NearshoreNearshore WatersWaters

Finally

Come to the breakout session this afternoon on..

Adaptive Management Implications for the Changing Aquatic Nearshore“What really can be done?”

26

AcknowledgmentsAcknowledgments

•• ChiaraChiaraZuccarinoZuccarino--Crowe, ORISE / U.S. Environmental Crowe, ORISE / U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyProtection Agency

•• Martin Auer, Michigan TechMartin Auer, Michigan Tech•• Harvey Harvey BootsmaBootsma, University of Wisconsin , University of Wisconsin –– MilwaukeeMilwaukee•• Susan Watson, Environment CanadaSusan Watson, Environment Canada•• Greg Boyer, State University of New YorkGreg Boyer, State University of New York•• Scudder Mackey, Habitat SolutionsScudder Mackey, Habitat Solutions•• Ken Phillips, U.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceKen Phillips, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service•• Nicholas E. Nicholas E. MandrakMandrak, Scott M. Reid, Fisheries and , Scott M. Reid, Fisheries and

Oceans CanadaOceans Canada

27

AcknowledgmentsAcknowledgments

•• Kristen Kristen HoleckHoleck, Department of Natural Resources, , Department of Natural Resources, Cornell UniversityCornell University

•• Edward Mills, Department of Natural Resources, Cornell Edward Mills, Department of Natural Resources, Cornell UniversityUniversity

•• Hugh Hugh MacIsaacMacIsaac, University of Windsor, University of Windsor•• Anthony Anthony RicciardiRicciardi, McGill University, McGill University•• John Kelly, U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyJohn Kelly, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency•• Stacey Stacey CherwatyCherwaty--PergentilePergentile, Environment Canada, Environment Canada•• Ly nda D Ly nda D Corkum,SilviaCorkum,Silvia N. N. DopazoDopazo University of WindsorUniversity of Windsor

28